Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Constitutional hardball tactics may be necessary but it's not an end in and of itself. Don't underestimate the ability of white nationalists and the GOP to reinvent themselves, and expand the definition of whiteness to ensure they remain relevant. Many Hispanics for example have somewhat conservative social values and skin that is no darker than someone from southern Italy.
And yet if the Republicans were willing to accommodate Hispanics in such a manner they wouldn't have chosen Trump.
I don't think it's impossible but unless the party changes electoral reform would hurt them badly, and the enduring influence of Trump's cult and the reactionary interest groups mean that they're unlikely to change any time soon.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang
Pretty much every previous occasion where it seemed like the specter of American nativism was finally on its way out for good, racists just redefined whiteness to include a larger group of people and were once again able to be politically relevant.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Oct 10th 2020 at 6:10:06 AM
x2 Except this time it seems pretty clear they aren't willing to expand that definition anymore. You think lighter skinned Hispanics haven't been targets of ICE raids? Or have been immune from the family separations in the south? To most "White people" (IE the racist ones), Hispanics are completely foreign, no matter what skin tone they have. And we're already seeing multiple Republicans starting to return towards Anti-Semitism (Trump, that Greene Qanon nut), when Hebrews used to fall under the expanded definition of "White".
Edited by DingoWalley1 on Oct 10th 2020 at 6:13:47 AM
It's not so clear how the 2022 Senate elections would work. On the one hand there is the midterm backlash but on the other hand a very tilted electoral map - think 2018 watered down and flipped by party.
Also, I wonder if president Sanders or president Hillary would have had a more praised COVID response ... because they aren't Trump. Trump over the course of this presidency gained a large and fanatical hatedom but I am not so sure these two would have. And obviously they don't live in epidemiological la la land.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanPretty much every previous occasion where it seemed like the specter of American nativism was finally on its way out for good, racists just redefined whiteness to include a larger group of people and were once again able to be politically relevant.
I'm not sure the name of this fallacy but just because something has happened a certain way in the past does not mean that it must, intrinsically, occur the same way in the future. Trends are set in stone until they aren't.
I'm not suggesting that they're definitely going to lose, but a more realistic threat is them entrenching their power and establishing minority rule. Even if they bounce back in the future it needn't be as strong as they are now.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang![]()
![]()
The "old guard" fought tooth and nail against the Irish and Italians being considered whites back when that shift happened. Trump losing in a landslide would force the hands of the more subtle kinds of white nationalists, ie Black Pigeon Speaks, who specifically suggested treating Hispanics Jews, Arabs, and Persians as white for as long as it takes for them to gain power and start restricting the definition again.
My point isn't that it's inevitable, but that there needs to be more reforms to prevent history from repeating itself, which would be disastrous given we anticipate removing many of the checks on rule by simple majorities. Incidentally, the "bounce back" I fear doesn't look like Trump who blares his racism with the subtlety of a foghorn as much as it looks like Reagan systematically undermining large portions of the civil rights act with clever and "reasonable" sounding dogwhistles.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Oct 10th 2020 at 6:22:07 AM
If anyone's interested, there's a virtual protest this week against the SCOTUS confirmation. It involves tagging your Senator(s) on your social media accounts with the hashtag #TellMitchNo and a message of opposition, and tagging 2 friends to do the same. The idea is to flood the Senators' social media feeds.
Here's the event
for more info.
The ONLY argument that I can think of as to how Clinton may of had a worse Corona virus response than Trump is the idea that Trump's mere presence in the White House made the lockdown more palatable to the 2nd Amendment folk.
Of course, this premise a) assumes that the early part of the Clinton pandemic response was at least as bad as the Trump response to require a national lockdown; b) Trump can be replaced by a generic republican and it would still hold true, so it's not something that can be credited to Trump specifically and c) it's really unfair to hold someone accountable for the actions of people who deliberately act in bad faith. The 2nd Amendment folk would have spent the last 3 years of a Clinton presidency looking for any excuse to kick off, if they hadn't done so already.
This has probably been asked before, but that doomsday scenario where, now that the Supreme Court is majority conservative, they could then invalidate the election and throw the presidency to Trump, no matter how much of a landslide Biden wins by— that's not really possible, is it?
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it.One way or the other, it seems like the next 4 years, even with Biden winning, will be quite the battle, with Republicans still occupying 2 out of the 4 branches of the government.
Edited by Forenperser on Oct 10th 2020 at 2:10:57 PM
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianIt depends on a lot of factors, but the Supreme Court's primary job is to decide what is and isn't constitutional. The big thing is that the election would have to go to court, which would only happen in a close election. So for that to happen, it has to be so close that Trump doesn't need the help that badly.
Also, it implies even a conservative majority supreme court is that loyal to Trump, which isn't as likely as it sounds. Supreme Court Justices aren't like politicians, they don't have to be loyal to a specific political party to get ahead. IIRC, even the guys Trump has appointed have shown that they aren't blindly loyal to him.
Leviticus 19:34To have it happen would require the cooperation of five out of...
- Alito and Thomas (sure)
- Roberts (aw hell naw)
- Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (not to be counted on for either side)
- ACB (unknown - as I just said, Trump's previous picks have had unaccountable attacks of respect for the law once they were appointed)
If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Roberts and Gorsuch torpedoing Trump's inevitable attempt.
Edited by Ramidel on Oct 10th 2020 at 4:23:08 AM
@Hellboy: It depends on how close the election actually is. In a scenario where there's a recount or controversy over the validity of certain ballots ("hanging chads") that would swing the election, I could see the conservative supreme court ruling in favor of Trump. In many other situations though I find that unlikely.

A week ago Schumer mentioned in an interview that the electoral reform bill the House passed at the beginning of the year was still something the Senate Democrats were planning to vote on if they win control.